Consciousness is not a product of the brain - the evidence.

[Whateverman]

But thats just what being composed of matter necessitates - it is visible, it is directly observable. Our inability to directly observe the "creation of a hurricane, the formation of stars, the infection of a person with some disease, the orbiting of an electron around a nucleus" is out of our ignorance, not because its not visibly there.

I disagree

The creation of emergent properties/phenomenon can't be observed directly. All you can observe is their gradual emergence.

I mean, if you take a human baby who's been born and is 1 minute-old, you can't observe the moment of that baby's creation in the womb. If you had miraculous technology, all you would observe are several things which when taken as a whole over time, represent the creation of the baby. There isn't a single instant at which you can point and say "That's when the baby came into existence!". Implantation of a sperm cell in an egg doesn't create a baby; it creates something that will eventually be a baby.

If quantum mechanics is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), you can't observe an actual electron orbiting around an actual nucleus. The electron exists as a probability wave, so with perfect technology, all you'd see is a cloud-like thing. You wouldn't see a point spinning around a nucleus.

There are all kinds of things we infer the existence of without seeing directly. In some of them, our ignorance and poor technology is the reason, but in others, no such technology is possible, because there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists.

 

[Ontos]

I disagree

..because there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists.

Heraclitus thought all is flux or becoming too - he has been rightfully rejected.

We will absolutely have to disagree

 

[Whateverman]

Heraclitus thought all is flux or becoming too - he has been rightfully rejected.

I don't think all is in flux. I know some things are, though.

We will absolutely have to disagree

I think this is worth continuing the conversation, but if you're not interested then I can respect that.

 

[Ontos]

I don't think all is in flux...

"there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists."

These seems contradictory - where am I going wrong?

 

[Whateverman]

"there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists."

These seems contradictory - where am I going wrong?

Some things, like baseballs, definitely exist in a definite location at a definite moment in time. Other things, like electrons, do not.

Before it's born, a human baby (to remove the difficulties of the abortion debate) slowly appears from the thing growing in the mother's belly. At the beginning of gestation, only fertilized embryo exists. You can call that a "baby", but what you're actually referring to is the fertilized embryo's potential to grown into a baby. At that moment, it looks nothing like one, and if you played the coconut game with it and fertilized embryos from chimps, squid and chickadees, you wouldn't be able to pick the human baby out from the lot.

So, at what moment in time does the thing which looks and behaves nothing like a human baby - become a human baby? There are moments towards the end of gestation when any reasonable person can look at the unborn in an ultrasound, and be correct in saying "yep, it's a human baby!". There are also moments towards the beginning when you cannot.

Hurricanes don't get born as point particles. They emerge from organized thunderstorms and wind patterns; sure, you can definitely recognize a hurricane on a satellite photo, but a knowledgeable person can also recognize when things which aren't yet hurricanes will evolve into them.

The reality is that most things are born this way. We put labels on and categorize things which don't always fit into neat labels/categories. This "sorting" of things into neat categories is human-born; nature itself doesn't care (and doesn't need to care) what we call them. It simply *is*.

 

[Ontos]

Some things, like baseballs, definitely exist in a definite location at a definite moment in time. Other things, like electrons, do not.

If the baseball can be definite then it cannot be the case that "there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists."

If definite, then the baseball is clearly existing in a "single moment or point", I don't see how you can avoid this.

And appealing to electrons or anything else you mentioned just goes back to our ignorance.

 

[Whateverman]

If the baseball can be definite then it cannot be the case that "there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists."

Maybe some of the confusion can be banished by restoring the other text around my quote? Here it is in full:

There are all kinds of things we infer the existence of without seeing directly. In some of them, our ignorance and poor technology is the reason, but in others, no such technology is possible, because there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists.​

The italicized text is true of unobserved electrons, not unobserved baseballs.

More broadly, I'm saying "existence" is easily identifiable in many situations, but in many situations it is not. Take a bunch of leather and thread and rubber - the things will eventually be used to build a baseball - and you can't call the collection of those things a baseball. Let's imagine is takes a day to assemble and cure a baseball; at what point in the manufacturing process can you say "yup, that's a baseball"? Towards the end of the process, certainly; towards the beginning, it's still just string, leather and rubber.

Sure, once it's fully assembled, we can point to a specific time and place and say a baseball exists there. It's not necessarily possible for the fringes of a hurricane, though: places where there's a lot of wind but no clouds, or places where there are clouds but no wind.

This inability to identify clear lines in space/time as to where that hurricane exists is not an issue of our ignorance. It's an issue of the hurricane not having clearly defined boundaries. Humans have defined then characteristics of a hurricane - but that's just a human definition. People still consider the edges of the storm where the winds aren't hurricane strength a "hurricane"

Many things have - at some point in their existence - blurry edges (at best). Some things have almost no edge at all, like electrons.

---

What's your justification for thinking that thoughts must be like baseballs?

 

[Ontos]

Maybe some of the confusion can be banished by restoring the other text around my quote? Here it is in full:

There are all kinds of things we infer the existence of without seeing directly. In some of them, our ignorance and poor technology is the reason, but in others, no such technology is possible, because there's no single moment or point in space at which the thing emerges or exists.​

The italicized text is true of unobserved electrons, not unobserved baseballs.

[/QUOTE]

Technologically perhaps but thats irrelevant as logically an electron is still material, still spatiotemporal, and thus visible/observable. Theres no escaping that, there's no nonspatiotemporal-nonvisible/nonoberservable material thing.

This inability to identify clear lines in space/time as to where that hurricane exists is not an issue of our ignorance. It's an issue of the hurricane not having clearly defined boundaries. Humans have defined then characteristics of a hurricane - but that's just a human definition. People still consider the edges of the storm where the winds aren't hurricane strength a "hurricane"

[/QUOTE]
"not having clearly defined boundaries" just is our ignorance.

Many things have - at some point in their existence - blurry edges (at best). Some things have almost no edge at all, like electrons.

[/QUOTE]
No matter how "almost" it is, it still has an edge - there are no edgeless material things.

---

What's your justification for thinking that thoughts must be like baseballs?

?

 

[Whateverman]

?

I'll stop, because we're just going back and forth and not getting anywhere. All I'll leave you with (and then let you have the last word if you want) is that reading some layman-level quantum mechanics will dispel some of the confusion here. In short, there are objectively real things that we can not observe directly without interfering with them - which means what we see isn't necessarily what/where/when the thing really is.

 

[Ontos]

I'll stop, because we're just going back and forth and not getting anywhere. All I'll leave you with (and then let you have the last word if you want) is that reading some layman-level quantum mechanics will dispel some of the confusion here. In short, there are objectively real things that we can not observe directly without interfering with them - which means what we see isn't necessarily what/where/when the thing really is.

I have no problem with this

But this comes back man being ignorant - being limited - but its irrelevant to my point that material things are necessarily observable.

 

[The Pixie]

I have no problem with this

But this comes back man being ignorant - being limited - but its irrelevant to my point that material things are necessarily observable.

This is not a human limitation. It is physically impossible to know the exact speed and location of a particle like an electron.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is one of the most celebrated results of quantum mechanics and states that one (often, but not always) cannot know all things about a particle (as it is …

chem.libretexts.org

 

[The Pixie]

"Consciousness is not a product of the brain - the evidence"

If consciousness is a part of the brain then it would be spatio\temporal - it should therefore be able to be observed and measured, indeed; what you're conscious of at any given moment should be able to be observed and measured. And, not simply observing neurons firing in a CT scan but the formal thing you're actually conscious of...

And by the same token, if it is a receiver, we should be able to build a device that can pick up the signals and see what you are thinking, or at least what you are sending and receiving, i.e., how you are controlling your body and what you are perceiving.

However, the fact is that it is very complicated. We do have machines that can detect thought processes, but as yet they cannot tell us what is being thought. However, we have no devices that pick up the messages being sent and received.

 

[Ontos]

This is not a human limitation. It is physically impossible to know the exact speed and location of a particle like an electron.

Right, "physically impossible" would be a human limitation but that's irrelevant to the fact that an electron is still matter and still necessarily observable minus any limitations...

 

[The Pixie]

Right, "physically impossible" would be a human limitation but that's irrelevant to the fact that an electron is still matter and still necessarily observable minus any limitations...

Physically impossible means that it is not even theoretical possible. This is not a limitation of the technology we have to measure it, it is a limit the laws of the universe imposes. Whether an electron is matter depends on how you define matter. They are not discrete things in the way a baseball is; they are as much waves as particles.

To bring this back to consciousness... Yes, consciousness looks to be spatio-temporal and part of the brain. We have zero examples of consciousness that do not depend on a brain. We can see brain activity when consciousness is active, and we can see different parts of the brain are active when a consciousness does different sorts of thinks.

Your point that we cannot see those thoughts is because we do not - as yet - know how to translate from one domain to another. It is no different to objecting to the claim that a CD holds Beethoven's fifth sympathy because you cannot see any music on it, or objecting that DNA does not contain the code for life because we cannot look at a DNA sequence and predict the nature of the organism it will produce (without comparing to know sequences). In each example you need a way to translate from one thing to another. The absence of a translator does not disprove the message in the source.

 

[Ontos]

Physically impossible means that it is not even theoretical possible.

No, physically impossible literally means >>physic<<ally impossible
Not possible by means of physics

Saying it's also "not even theoretically possible" is true if ones epistemology stops at whats physical...

Whether an electron is matter depends on how you define matter. They are not discrete things in the way a baseball is; they are as much waves as particles.

Would you affirm an immaterial wave or an immaterial particle? I would think not, thus they are material and to be material just is to be discrete in some way.

Your point that we cannot see those thoughts...

No, my point was that they should be observable in virtue of being material.

 

[The Pixie]

No, physically impossible literally means >>physic<<ally impossible
Not possible by means of physics

It is not possible because of the physics of the universe.

Saying it's also "not even theoretically possible" is true if ones epistemology stops at whats physical...

Ah, I see where you are going with this. I guess you mean God can know a particle's momentum and location with perfect precision.

Would you affirm an immaterial wave or an immaterial particle? I would think not, thus they are material and to be material just is to be discrete in some way.

They are discrete in some way, yes. But in other ways they are not. Whether that makes them material depends on how you want to define material.

No, my point was that they should be observable in virtue of being material.

They are observable, using fMRI.

They are not comprehensible, but my point was that there are plenty of material things that can be observed and not comprehended.

 

[Ontos]

They are observable, using fMRI.

They are not comprehensible, but my point was that there are plenty of material things that can be observed and not comprehended.

You think viewing an electro-chemical reaction = Viewing the conscious awareness of say a pink elephant?

 

[The Pixie]

You think viewing an electro-chemical reaction = Viewing the conscious awareness of say a pink elephant?

You think it cannot be? Why?

 

[Ontos]

You think it cannot be? Why?

Is that a yes or no to my question?

 

[The Pixie]

You think viewing an electro-chemical reaction = Viewing the conscious awareness of say a pink elephant?

It is not, but there is no reason it should be possible, with better technology and understanding.